Milton Friedman once observed, “If the government ran the Sahara, in five years there would be a shortage of sand.” 

He was right. The government has run Social Security for more than 80 years, and now there is a shortage of security. At this point, the experts believe that someone who is 79 years old today is likely to outlive the system’s ability to pay scheduled benefits. 

The solution, according to the White House fact sheet on the 2024 Budget Proposal, is: do nothing, and the Republicans cheered. That leaves a rapidly growing problem to third parties.

Social Security presents a mental challenge to libertarians as a whole. Little on this earth demonstrates more clearly the dangers of big government. Yet, at the same time, the venerated program has set in motion a crisis that likely can only be addressed by a big government.

In theory, Social Security is social insurance where workers pay for benefits that they expect to collect in the future. Since its inception, the program has, for every $1 ever collected, generated $3 of promises for which it doesn’t expect to have money to pay out. In total, the program expects to leave current voters $22 trillion short of a planned retirement.

In other words, while people pay for their benefits, they have not paid enough.

Given that politics is the art of promising more than you can deliver, Social Security is the greatest program in the history of government.

The Libertarian Party’s platform does not abolish Social Security. Rather, it would phase out Social Security. In essence, the government would force future Americans to clean up the mess that they had no role in creating. So, that version of libertarianism isn’t entirely opposed to the use of force by big government.

As much as libertarians do not like it, Social Security is constitutional. According to the Supreme Court, Congress has the power to spend money to promote the general welfare. 

You may not agree with the Court, and the Court would tell you to vote for someone who will remove the power to spend money on the general welfare from the Constitution.

Equally true, you think Social Security is a foolish policy. In which case, the Court would tell you to vote for someone who offers a better policy.

The Court wrote, our job is about power, not about wisdom. In other words, you can’t petition the Court for protection from the wishes of everyone else as expressed by their representatives, no matter how witless.

That ruling dates back to 1935. Given that Social Security was completely rewritten in the 1970s, very little of the program has actually passed constitutional muster in the Court. So, instead of complaining about the constitutionality of Social Security, put your pennies in the game and take the case to the Court.

For example, it would be reasonable for someone to ask how the program, as configured today, promotes the general welfare. Keep in mind that as you read this column, the program will generate roughly $1 million in promises that it is unlikely to keep. Maybe the government can explain how empty promises promotes the general welfare?

One day, economists will study this comedy, because Social Security is the perfect storm of bad economics. It blends the inefficiency of monopolies, with the incompetence of government, with the indifference of absolute pricing power. This concoction isn’t just headed for failure. It is headed for massive failure.

In response to the impending crisis, our politicians cheer, proving the basic tenet of libertarianism: big government is dangerous.

The biggest problem that I see today is those who are involved in reform are not trying to fix the system. They are simply trying to find a way to pay for it without inconveniencing their voters.

 Brenton Smith (think@heartland.org) is a policy advisor with The Heartland Institute.

Image: Free SVG